Capitalism versus Communism Thread.

Post Reply New Topic

In a capitalist society more opportunities are created and more jobs are created. Even the poor people find work in a good capitalist economy. Government intervention leads to booms and busts in the economy. The harder you work the more you earn. Welfare payments are a short term fix and motivation for you to get back into the work force unless you are disabled or aged.

In a communist society you get paid the same regardless how hard you work. Great system if you are lazy and incompetent. Government officials get paid the most for doing bugger all under the communist system. Socialism always eventually leads to Communism. National Socialism is a form of Socialism on its way to becoming Communism. Communism and National Socialism share a lot of things in common: state controlled, state owned, one party dictatorship, totalitarianism and state police system.

There is either a good efficient capitalist economic system(free market and private enterprise) and freedom or a bad inefficient communist economic system(state run, owned and no private ownership) and no freedom. Economics is black and white. Capitalism is regarded as the exact opposite of Communism.

Capitalism won out over Communism during the 20th century with the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. National Socialism also failed miserably with the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945. Fascism was another fad that faded out. Communism persevered for over 70 years before it was abandoned as government policy in China and the Soviet Union now Russia. Even Cuba has abandoned Communism and started to adopt capitalism.

North Korea remains the isolated paranoid nation holding onto its Communist ideologies and anti-American capitalist propaganda is heavily pushed by Kim Jung Il in Communist North Korea. North Koreans continue to starve due to evil Communism at work. The lucky North Koreans who manage to escape often end up in Chinese prisons.

I dislike and often avoid threads which open with a gauntlet.

So often both horns arde presented with slogans and stereotypes, if not outright misrepresentation.

I err towards the side of Capitalism, I find the communist doctrine tries to make people into something they are not (anhedonic, apathetic ants)

"Anhedonic Ants" is VERY good. Your own?

I don't see how you can prove that socialism always leads to Communism. There's never been a socialist state that didn't start out as Communism right away (at least, that didn't fall apart or have its government overthrown by the USA). Also, government intervention has generally helped mitigate boom and bust economics--the Great Depression happened before there was government intervention and afterwards governments intervened so as to prevent something like it happening again. Maybe it's not a direct result, but we haven't had another Great Depression since then.

Anyway, my view is that both systems are flawed. At least, all Communism the world has seen to date is flawed. I favour market socialism myself.

Use of tobacco leads to use of either booze or pot.

Booze leads directly to alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver.

Pot leads to drug addiction and a life of sex, crime and degradation.

OF COURSE socialism leads inevitably to communism. Just as laissez faire capitalism ineluctably breeds Fascism.

And haste makes waste - no, that is a didfferent set of truisms,

Under Capitalism humans cruelly exploit other humans Under Communism it is just the other way around.

ruveyn

A few inconsistencies with this. The poor may be able to find work in ANY economic system. The capitalist one is the worse of the lot as the entire system revolves around stepping on the person below you in the ladder..and the poor got nobody under them.

You do not earn more for harder work. Thats patently false. The capitalist system by its very nature is against increasing costs. You may or may have not have had the experience of being fired from a job merely because your tenure meant you were being paid more than what they could pay a newhire to do your job. When I say paid more I mean the guy making 18 an hour because he's been in the company 10 years, each year getting a measly 1 dollar raise...and he gets fired because a new hire will now do his job for 9 an hour. In a capitalist system, this is an ideal situation.

Welfare? Welfare is a socialist concept it has nothing to do with capitalism. The only reason welfare exists is to prevent the masses from becoming violent. Read your history.



socialism does not lead to communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism just like tuberculosis can be said to be an extreme form of the common cold. aside from that, yes the description of communism you give is accurate.



There's the socialist approach to capitalism. It is referred to as some as a socialist capitalism.. aka Responsible Capitalism. This system is used by many highly successful European countries.. countries whose economies are very strong, that have virtually zero poverty, have excellent universal healthcare and education, cheap and easily accessible higher education and a standard of living that few who live in capitalist countries can fathom.

The major differences? The US capitalist system has a tremendous output ability .. to produce material things,services,technological advances and to generate capital... but does so at the expense of its population's well being and their environment. High short term profit and 'safe' long term profit is the purpose of capitalism.

Responsible Capitalism (socialist+capitalist) systems produce tech. advances and services at a slower rate but their material production is just as good as the pure capitalists. This system also produces less capital at a slower rate however this is offset by the reliability and solidity of their markets. This is all because the state strictly regulates the markets and laws are set so that people work for a company to live not live to work for a company. The population living under this system have an extremely high standard of living and education..the state is responsible for its citizen's well being (this includes the environment). Sustainable growth that enables the country to care for its people is the purpose of the socialist+capitalist system.

From your post I see you're regurgitating what you've been told and likely have never stepped outside or lived outside a capitalist system. I'd suggest you make the time to travel or better yet, spend a year abroad and see just how different things really are.

And THAT is neat, even pithy. Again I ask - your own?

Yup, it seemed...appropriate




Laissez faire capitalism isn't dependent on the existence of any state, so it hardly necessitates a particular form arising.



Tuberculosis is a bacteriogenic condition caused by M. tuberculosis, while the common cold is a viral condition caused by a myriad of different pathogens. Although I don't believe socialism necessarily leads to communism, I think both are questionable doctrines.

Ryan:

Quote:
OF COURSE socialism leads inevitably to communism. Just as laissez faire capitalism ineluctably breeds Fascism.


Laissez faire capitalism isn't dependent on the existence of any state, so it hardly necessitates a particular form arising.

-----------------

Of course. Experience shows that generally speaking [I hate to get universal] the link between two consecutive states is rarely if ever inevitable.

I shall keep the ants in my head for future use.

aaah an overly analyzed sentence thats why I love this forum

i meant it in terms that both have the person coughing and suffering yet one is a serious illness the other one isnt.

Well..... no, that's a misunderstanding. Capitalism revolves around profit and loss, not hierarchy. This does not mean that capitalism is anti-hierarchical, or even that it won't tend towards hierarchy, but it is not as central to the system, as all that the system cares about is the circular flow of money.


It varies. I mean, it isn't "patently false", as part of the issue will be how this all scales. Unless the guy whose been in the company is twice as productive, the payment plan offered makes little sense. However, capitalists, seeking wealth, are really only against unjustified increases in costs. If they increase costs but also increase profits more than what they lose, then increasing the costs makes sense.

That being said... the company's action makes some sense in this case. Compared to the ideal composition of the factors of production, this guy's salary is way out of line with that. If he moved up the ladder, it could make some sense, but otherwise, his salary would make more sense capped and/or tied better to productivity than years of experience.


My understanding of welfare is that it really is a matter of welfare. I mean, a lot of welfare systems were put in place AFTER WW2, but at that point, the gains were getting more distributed.

Ohhh...sorry about that

Okay, that answers my question as to authorship. My wife just read me off one of her blogs a bumper sticker text precisely parallel except for using Republican and Democrat.

NOT original.

Still, good and apropos and a Philologos point for posting it.

A hierarchy is inherent in human nature. Do you think capitalism causes dogs to establish alpha and beta male statuses? Did it cause cavemen to do the same thing?